Saturday, March 05, 2016

Let me say up front that I am a life-long Republican and conservative. I have never voted for a Democrat in my life and have voted in every presidential and midterm election since 1988. I have never in my life considered myself anything but a conservative. I am pained to admit that the conservative media and many conservatives’ reaction to Donald Trump has caused me to no longer consider myself part of the movement. I would suggest to you that if you have lost people like me, and I am not alone, you might want to reconsider your reaction to Donald Trump. Let me explain why.

First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values. Everyone talks about how thankful we are for the Citizens’ United decision but seems to have forgotten how we were urged to vote for the coauthor of the law that the decision overturned. In 2012, we were told to vote for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts liberal who proudly signed an individual insurance mandate into law and refused to repudiate the decision. Before that, there was George W. Bush, the man who decided it was America’s duty to bring democracy to the Middle East (more about him later). And before that, there was Bob Dole, the man who gave us the Americans with Disabilities Act. I, of course, voted for those candidates and do not regret doing so. I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice. Given this history, the conservative media’s claims that the Republican party must reject Donald Trump because he is not a “conservative” are pathetic and ridiculous to those of us who are old enough to remember the last 25 years.

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.” The word seems to have become a brand that some people attach to a set of partisan policy preferences, rather than the set of underlying principles about government and society it once was. Conservatism has become a dog’s breakfast of Wilsonian internationalism brought over from the Democratic Party after the New Left took it over, coupled with fanatical libertarian economics and religiously-driven positions on various culture war issues. No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left.

TL;DR: He is an American nationalist who rejects cuckservatism.

For many years, people on both sides of the political spectrum have repeatedly tried to label me a conservative. If you look back to the very beginning, to my first column on WND after 9/11, I have steadfastly resisted that label because I have always known that I do not share an outlook with those who proudly wear it.

I am a nationalist, I am a traditionalist, I am a Christian, and I am right-wing, but I am most definitely not a conservative. I never was and I never will be.

The reason is this: conservatives are nothing more than progressives in slow motion.

The author, a veteran, proceeds to address the neoconning of conservatism, as reflected in conservatism's newfound enthusiasm for violently exporting what it deceptively calls "democracy" around the world:

Third, there is the issue of the war on Islamic extremism. Let me say upfront that, as a veteran of two foreign deployments in this war, I speak with some moral authority on it. So please do not lecture me on the need to sacrifice for one’s country or the nature of the threat that we face. I have gotten on that plane twice and have the medals and t-shirt to prove it. And, as a member of the one percent who have actually put my life on the line in these wars movement conservatives consider so vital, my question for you and every other conservatives is just when the hell did being conservative mean thinking the US has some kind of a duty to save foreign nations from themselves or bring our form of democratic republicanism to them by force? I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world. I have even less explanations for how — 15 years and 10,000 plus lives later — conservatives refuse to examine their actions and expect the country to send more of its young to bleed and die over there to save the Iraqis who are clearly too slovenly and corrupt to save themselves.

The lowest moment of the election was when Trump said what everyone in the country knows: that invading Iraq was a mistake. Rather than engaging the question with honest self-reflection, all of the so called “conservatives” responded with the usual “How dare he?” Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count? Sure, we signed up to give our lives for our country and I will never regret doing so. But doesn’t our commitment require a corresponding responsibility on the part of the president to only expect us to do so when it is both necessary and in the national interest?

And since when is bringing democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan so much in the national interest that it is worth killing or maiming 50,000 Americans to try and achieve?

Although I think it's more difficult to pigeonhole Vox than most people, I've repeatedly labeled him a Paleoconservative with some minor twists. To date, he hasn't found my assertions interesting enough or offensive enough to respond. Wait...he has told me to stop being stupid a few times, but I don't think it was over this. That could change...

He doesn't believe in blowback. Interesting. Explains why he made no mention of those we have harmed in our spread of "democracy". There's blowback all right. Whatever we sow, we shall reap...and something has got to satiate the cry of the blood from the soil. Glad to see he is at least more discerning now.

I hold to principles of decency, honor, tradition, limited government and the free market. These are timeless principles that do not belong to any movement, and if some organization that claims to support them betrays them, the answer isn’t to turn to a populist, big government proto-fascist.

What I, as a Canadian immersed in unprincipled foreign policy (bankrupt ourselves so the baby boomers can feel less guilt), see Trump as someone who is going to clear away past misconceptions.

The old media look like a bunch of sallow, vacuous leeches, begging for scraps. The new media is taking the new road, bravely standing up to marxists, finally unafraid to challenge the blmers, splc etc.

Soon the Supreme Court will be rendered irrelevant and The Great Reset will begin. Won't be pretty, but living under this depraved culture is soul-draining.

Blowback... as in the millions of slavs enslaved by the Ottomans? Blowback is a never ending book of grudges.. I don't care for it. Kill as we need to to defend our families and our civilisation and let the rest determine their own fate.

Bravo. FWIW, I was shadow banned and at times banned at Ricochet for arguing against feminism. Rachel Wu called for a code of conduct and safe spaces on the site. Mollie Hemingway censored me. And I was an early adopter and paying member!

Seems like the site has come to its senses a bit. They didn't censor this guy.

At the 2000 caucuses (MN), I had the joyful experience of being one of the few arguing against Dubya at my county convention. My answer to "he can win" was "So what?" Hint: At a republican convention, saying something like, "Al Gore and George Bush are just about the same" does not go over well.

Conservatism is the movement to legitimize the left and even their day to day tactical approach of endless quibbling essays accomplished this feat. You never see a conservative disqualify the left they immediately delve into abstract hoo haa

I don't reject Trump for any of the reasons Mr. Kluge delineates and I certainly don't intend to demean any of the Trump supporters. I reject Donald Elizondo Mountain Dew John Trump because he's too stupid to be my president.

I think the problem with post modern "conservatism" goes back to and begins with the likes of William B. Fuckley, or as others call him, William F. Buckely. WBF led the "conservative" charge against the John Birch Society, not because the JBS was not conservative, but rather because the JBS was NATIONALIST and CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! For some reason people, for the most part, were toofa king stupid and ignorant to pick up on what was going on. I'm "conservative" in the sense that I'm morally traditional for the most part, tempered by my libertarian live and let live principles, but not in any way that goes against my nation or my insistence on limiting the power of government.

"No one seems to have any idea or concern for how these positions are consistent or reflect anything other than a general hatred for Democrats and the Left."

Oh, I've got a pretty good guess. How about we start here:

"I, however, am self-aware enough to realize I voted for them because I will vote for virtually anyone to keep the Left out of power and not because I thought them to be the best or even really a conservative choice."

@18 Trump, a graduate of the top business school in the world, Wharton, a success in real estate and television, has an IQ over 140, maybe 150--compared to low 120s for Hillary, and even worse for Mr. Gang of 8. Cruz is smart, no doubt, but can't be trusted.

Trump is intelligent enough to identify highly intelligent people to write his policies.

This is exactly the issue. Anyone who thinks the globalist elite (that have power and money enough to make Trump look like an insignificant third world pauper), are not going to send in the big guns who are paid lots of money specifically because they can be very persuasive within the system, hasn't thought this through. Trump is being thoroughly investigated and psychoanalyzed by the best of the best and a strategy to leverage him so as to have his policies written in their favor is being constructed as we speak. Trump won't know what hit him. He's too stupid. He is very smart on a very narrow range of subjects. The rest of his understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep.

"I am a nationalist, I am a traditionalist, I am a Christian, and I am right-wing, but I am most definitely not a conservative. I never was and I never will be."

I used to consider myself conservative but no more. That was a great article, Vox! Minus his misunderstanding of blowback, which is unforeseen negative consequences, he certainly has four salient points. What really struck me was how he basically asked to imagine what it's like to have a fat politician who's never put his life on the line for the country tell you what to think.

The reason I support Trump is beyond his support for immigration. It's because he gives lip service to putting the republic first.

I supported the idea of going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan but thought Iraq was a mistake.

But even in Afghanistan, I remembered the Soviet Union's invasion in 1980 and one of my military supervisors calling it Russia's Viet Nam. "Afghanistan is where empires go to die," he quoted. And that thought has been in my head ever since 9/11.

American progressives just cannot get their heads around just how primitive these turd worlders are. The idea of exercising sexual self-control with even their own children is incomprehensible to them. If they lack even that little self-control how can we expect them to check their passions when an election doesn't go their way?

"An eye for an eye" was a radical command to LIMIT revenge! NOT a rallying cry FOR revenge as we moderns see it.

We are FOOLS to think we can civilize these people withoutthem first embracing the true Gospel.

It now makes sense to me why God called for the extermination of the Canaanites! These people cannot as a whole be reformed. They must be quarantined or put down.

Which is why the allies divided the middle East as they did after WWI and out Tring Men in charge.

Rank-and-file conservatives have been very poor stewards of their own movement, allowing near-constant infiltration and manipulation by cynical self-interested political charlatans. They tend to get treated like rubes because, unfortunately, they have acted like rubes.

I remember when the neocons really began to assert themselves after September 11, a sudden emergence of new names, many of which had at best a marginal affiliation with any sort of non-foreign-policy conservative activity before that date.

Rather than questioning just who the hell these new entrants were, "conservatives" embraced them with a blind viciousness which led them to lash out at actual, established conservatives over opposition to policies like the Iraq war that were not conservative to begin with.

Or how about the brilliant manner in which Tea Party groups decided to pour millions into campaign of their "first senator" in 2010 - a sleazy billionaire-owned con-man named Marco Rubio?

I can only hope that the Trump trend means that ground-level conservative types are finally dispensing with some of their electoral retardation of the past 20 years.

A conservative is nationalist and traditionalist. Alas, the term 'conservative' in the minds of the American people now means what Neoconservatism is. Another name for Neoconservatism is Wilsonianism, the ideology that took us into Word War 1, which paved the way for Lenin and Hitler. Neoconservatism is nothing if not incompetent in the realm of foreign policy.

"Hillary is National Merit. Her IQ is at least 140. Trump's is probably 130 or so. If he was National Merit, we would know it."Hillary's SAT is listed at 1200....that's about 125....If she's legitimately National Merit, maybe she had a bad day or something....

I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same. At the same time, I cannot for the life of me understand how conservatives of all people convinced themselves that the solution to the 9-11 attacks was to forcibly create democracy in the Islamic world.

That isn't happening with illegal immigration, and that is not blowback for anything.

I think what he is trying to get at is that greed, religious zealotry, and other motivators would have them attack us in many cases regardless of what we do or do not do more than the narrower issue of "blowback". I think if it was put as a singular question - are some of the attacks related to specific bad things we did, I think he would agree, but "blowback" is often used as a catch-all argument that everything is our fault. It isn't, no more than the teenage girls being raped in Europe have done things to make the Muslim refvaders hate them.

Reading through the comments there (which is nauseating), it is interesting to note the Anyone But Trump (Including Hillary) crowd has a sizable presence there.

Now, I'm no fan of Ted Cruz. But how can anyone take the GOP seriously in their fight against Trump if they can barely acknowledge Cruz?

If Trump were really the Second Coming of Hitler/Mussolini/ Ghengis Khan that many of them claim, they would look at the electorate's distaste for Rubio and Cruz's second place position and work something out, pushing Ted Cruz as the GOP candidate.

The fact that they won't even entertain Cruz, rather than Marco Rubio, tells you exactly how corrupt and evil the established GOP/Democrat Monoparty really is.

They would be doing everything humanly possible to stop Trump. They would throw Jeb! And Rubio's money and all their Media/Fox influence behind Cruz (and not Rubio) and try to destroy Trump.

But they won't do that. This isn't a defense of Ted Cruz. But I haven't seen an anti-Trumper explain to me why they won't do this if Trump is so bad for the nation. When you have members of the supposedly republican establishment stating and intimating that they will support Hillary over Trump, but ignoring Cruz, you know they are shills and con artists.

Whether Trump fixes our problems or just brings our giant pimple of a Sham Republic to a head faster, so we can rebuild/reform faster, I don't care.

Trump. Go big or go home. Fix it or burn it down.

And, seriously, Mitt Romney? If you had shown even a tenth of the sack you showed attacking Trump, and went after Obama with that energy in '12, I might have considered you a viable candidate. Might have.

If you had shown the same "backbone" when Candace Crowley cock blocked you in the debate, I might have rethought my low opinion of you.

Trump may not be a genius, but he's not stupid - he certainly knows when he's being played (seen his Ali G interview?). And he's already had the sense to outmaneuver the "big guns" you hold in such esteem. He deftly avoided the concern troll consultant class, piling up a big delegate lead with miniscule expenditures, and went completely outside the establishment to put Sessions and his team in charge of his domestic policies.

After 9/11 there became this need to separate conservatism into paleo and neo varieties, even though in some ways there isn't a lot of overlap. I think he conflates these two philosophies and tries to find hypocrisy where it is not so much the case. That would be my only criticism.

He's going to be disappointed with Trump though, just as much of us were with Bush. (Although I had no illusions about Bush, I didn't think he would end up that bad.) Trump's #1 flaw is that he is too impulsive. He clearly lacks discipline in many areas. Certainly of the mouth, but primarily of principles.

To that extent, with regard to this author's criticism of Iraq: I can very much see President Trump making some off-the-cuff decision to deploy troops in some idiotic Middle Eastern nation for whatever emotional reason that happens to float his boat at the time.

He just doesn't have any sense of loyalty. One minute he's for you; the next minute he's against you. He is not restrained by the discipline of principles.

So I think the author will find one betrayal after another, in a sort of whirlwind roller coaster of contradictory actions. That's just my reading of it.

> First, I spent the last 20 years watching the conservative media in Washington endorse and urge me to vote for one candidate after another who made a mockery of conservative principles and values.

Oh but you see Mitt Romney, John McCain, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, and George H.W. Bush were oh so much more conservative than Donald Trump. What, you don't see that? Well, you'll just have to take the word of your betters on the matter. And make no mistake, they do think they're our betters.

Rank-and-file conservatives have been very poor stewards of their own movement, allowing near-constant infiltration and manipulation by cynical self-interested political charlatans. They tend to get treated like rubes because, unfortunately, they have acted like rubes.

I remember when the neocons really began to assert themselves after September 11, a sudden emergence of new names, many of which had at best a marginal affiliation with any sort of non-foreign-policy conservative activity before that date.

Rather than questioning just who the hell these new entrants were, "conservatives" embraced them with a blind viciousness which led them to lash out at actual, established conservatives over opposition to policies like the Iraq war that were not conservative to begin with.

Or how about the brilliant manner in which Tea Party groups decided to pour millions into campaign of their "first senator" in 2010 - a sleazy billionaire-owned con-man named Marco Rubio?

I can only hope that the Trump trend means that ground-level conservative types are finally dispensing with some of their electoral retardation of the past 20 years.

Is National Merit really that indicative of intelligence? I was National Merit and the whole process never struck me as that selective. It certainly never occurred to me to use it as a comparative metric.

@31 BTW, Bush's SAT score was 1206, and Kerry's about the same, while Bill Clinton's is listed at 1032, so high intelligence doesn't seem that important in presidential politics. But I have never run into anyone who had 2 successful careers (outside of government) who wasn't highly intelligent.

> Is National Merit really that indicative of intelligence? I was National Merit and the whole process never struck me as that selective. It certainly never occurred to me to use it as a comparative metric.

There is a strong relationship between IQ and PSAT/SAT scores. So yes, National Merit Finalist/Semifinalist does have a relationship to IQ.

I am pained to admit that the conservative media...Which "conservative media" is this person referring to? All I see is Fox; and while it's true that Fox *may* be less liberal, that's not the same thing as being conservative.

This seems reasonable give that Trump seems to relate so well to the ordinary person.

I believe that high IQ individuals have (genetically) traded off social-skills brain cells for brain cells devoted to highly abstract thinking etc, because there is only so much room in the skull, only so much energy you can devote to building and maintaining a large brain, and only so much room in the birth canal.

Back on Trump, for a second, I cannot forget the photo of Trump with that veteran who lost both arms. People in that situation can detect insincerity.

Trump seems to me to be a man of the people who is also very competent and understands that people want jobs not some bullshit about R2P and forever making the top 0.1% rich.

I have never voted for a Democrat in my life...While often a reliable indicator, this isn't foolproof. For example, in an election contest between a Northeastern, "Rockefeller Republican" and Democrat John Kennedy, who is actually more conservative in policy?

Second, it doesn’t appear to me that conservatives calling on people to reject Trump have any idea what it actually means to be a “conservative.”This is the same complaint I've had about most of the people supporting Trump. Usually, they accompany their arguments with straw men of what they imagine conservatism to be, instead of what it actually is.

I would wager that fully half of the Ricochet commentariat will vote for Hillary.

When I hear 'Conservative' I hear "special club where you are not welcome". I dearly hope Trump wins. Not because he will be a great president, I don't think he will. Simply that by winning he will have systematically dismantled so many seemingly impregnable strongholds of thought and practice.1. Clinton. A manifestation of everything that is wrong with the Democrats. Self serving self righteous criminal incompetence.2. Republican establishment and donor class. I am heartened to have seen them become $100 million poorer after Jeb! burned through the cash. Now Jeb's communication director is going to waste as much as can be raised trying to take down Trump. What 2008 didn't do inevitably happens.3. The rigid and ugly fascism of political correctness. Vox is right; the reality will either be discussed and solved in an open political argument, or by extremists taking advantage of a blitheringly stupid political class fooled by their own nonsense.4. The political consultant class. Smart managers and careful strategy are tools to accomplish what you want, but incredibly counterproductive and destructive shorn of basic sense and connection to reality. This is like getting rid of Marketing and Sales, replacing them with Legal. 5. The Conservative intellectual infrastructure. They are malignant pistules on the body politic.

Trump is NOT a freedom and liberty candidate, he is NOT for a smaller govt. And you need to understand that Loyalty is a HUGE thing for him, witness what he does to those who cross him, very much like Putin in that regard, actually two peas in a pdo there.

That being said, he's really the only game in town. As has been pointed out here many times, we at least have some probability of him doing something correct.

And for those who have not recognized it yet, Trump is running his campaign as a reality TV show, because that's what he thinks this all is at a fundamental level. How do you win a reality TV show ? You do and say those things that get you huge amounts of attention and the approval of the viewers.

Finally, understand that Trump is where he is because massive amounts of discontent are coming to the fore and Trump is the most convenient funnel at hand for that pouring forth of anger. He's a SYMPTOM not a cause. And whether or not he has realized it yet, he has grabbed a tiger by the balls. When he gets in office and does not do what all those angry people have asked for, their going to turn on HIM and things are really going to get out of hand, because Trump being Trump does not understand being wrong about anything.

I'm 99 percent sure Trump would have killed those Oregon guys too.

This whole thing is just getting started and it is going to get wilder by the day for a very long time to come.

Conservatism used to be about anti-communism and a nationalist foreign policy. It was also in favor of immigration restriction. Conservatives were against the 1965 immigration act. Somehow its now morphed into "Invade the world, invite the world". Empire building, social experiments, and massive societal change for the sake of some esoteric ideology isn't Conservatism.

I'm a Cruz supporter not a Trump supporter. But any "conservative" who calls Trump a racist or smears him for "flirting with fascism or the KKK" or labels him "Hitler" goes on my shit list. I know that I'm dealing with a leftist in conservative clothing.

Worse, they let Jeb Bush claim that Bush “kept us safe.” I can assure you that President Bush didn’t keep me safe. Do I and the other people in the military not count?

1) GWB had no significant attacks on the homeland after 9/11, even though everyone expected one to happen at any minute. This can be contrasted to the Obama years to illustrate the point. I'm sure if I've forgotten about an attack under GWB, someone here will remind me.

2) No, you and people in the military don't count. IT'S YOUR JOB to be put in harm's way, at least in overseas combat areas. That's why we draw a distinction between combatants and civilians.If you want to complain about whether the various overseas deployments were wise, that's a separate argument.

While Hillary might have had high IQ at one time, the neurologists say, 'Once the air touches the brain, you're never the same.' She has no doubt lost something after her accident, as even Huma's emails say she is 'often confused'.

She can get by on hardwired reflex, much like Rodney Dangerfield could still do his act extemporaneously when he could barely stand or speak. But when something original comes along, she'll have nothing to offer.

The so-called conservatives of Conservatism Inc. keep telling us they're in favor of "small Government". Well who cares? The Federal Government share of the GDP has either stayed the same or grown over the last 40 years no matter who's been in power. Further, the idea that Mitt, Dole, McCain, Jeb, Rubio, McConnell, or Ryan are in favor of "smaller government" is laughable. Even if they are willing to talk about doing it, they are unwilling to actually do it.

65 If you want to complain about whether the various overseas deployments were wise, that's a separate argument.

I think he was talking about the rules of engagement. For example Bill Clinton rules of engagement when US troops fought indigenous white Europeans that tried to kick out illegal alien drug dealers is the rules of engagement that the III% movement will be using against traitors and domestic enemies. Bath House Barry Obama's rules of engagement tie soldiers hands and must have been written by the moslem brotherhood.

@60 When he gets in office and does not do what all those angry people have asked for, their going to turn on HIM and things are really going to get out of hand, because Trump being Trump does not understand being wrong about anything.

I mentioned over at BB that Trump is in way over his head. He thinks this is a TV show but the anger that is fuelling his campaign is very real. He's playing with rattlesnakes.

8. Berlin Chair March 05, 2016 9:40 AMBlowback... as in the millions of slavs enslaved by the Ottomans? Blowback is a never ending book of grudges.. I don't care for it. Kill as we need to to defend our families and our civilisation and let the rest determine their own fate.

The point here is that on GW Bush's watch. GW Bush allowed our nation to be attacked by foreigners to the extent that is was the most devastating foreign attack on American soil in history.

That is the only relevant point here. When it comes to protecting American soil from foreign attack... George W Bush was the worst President in American history.

And Bush even let the Saudi families, that the FBI wanted to question, to leave the country whilst the rest of the country remained on lockdown. Bringing him into further questioning as to how well he protected our country. Let's see those 28 pages.

People say Trump will act like a dictator. OK, fine. The Democrats have brought this on themselves by first installing their own dictator. The Republican establishment has brought it on themselves by doing nothing to oppose the dictator we have now.

I say if we must have a dictator, at least let's have one who isn't fanatically dedicated to white genocide.

It's very annoying that we keep running out of words for self-labels due to all the idiot viprous joiners. How is it possible that we've lost BOTH liberal AND conservative?!

Paleoconservative seems pretty good as a substitute for conservative, with cuckservative and neocon distinguishing the root term. Neoreactionary is also pretty good as a substitute for liberal. Both have their flaws but their intersection corrects much of that.

Traditionalist is mostly good in a Western context but sounds like it conserves indiscriminately and loses meaning internationally. Paleoconservative is broader than it used to be, but not as excessively broad as traditionalist.

The ideological vs. moderate axis is also informative, and overlaps heavily with midwit vs intelligent.

**

"Christian" means nothing. It was just a word used by the world to describe followers of Jesus Christ. Initially it was Gentile mockery and ostracism. Now it basically means conformity with the worldly Cathedral. Time to scrap it; the salt has lost its saltiness.

The Jews called Christians "Nazarenes", again an insult, as in "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Another defunct insult.

Churchian and Pharisee help distinguish. But what's the word for "real, actual Christian"? I want a stigmatized term, one the world rejects as it does the real Jesus Christ.

Israelite is a nationality; too ambiguous. Fundamentalist is stigmatized but also means literalist inerrancy, which is silly.

"Biblical Christian" is unambiguous and suitably stigmatized. It lifts the middle finger of anti-worldly rebellion high. "King James Biblical Christian" does it even better, albeit at length. "I am of the Biblical elect" is more exclusionary.

Here's the one I like best: "I am a son of Jehovah, the God of the Bible." That brings an uncomfortable Old Testament realness and nearness to the conversation, and distinguishes from the false Jehovah's Witnesses or the Judaized Yahwehites. It makes clear that blasphemy will not be appreciated, and that force is in play.

**

Summary: I am a son of Jehovah, the God of the Bible. Politically, I am a paleoconservative neoreactionary nationalist.

I have to say, while I am 100% a Cruz supporter, what he wrote rings true. I have often said the Republican presidential primary voters have only gotten it right once in the past 35 years. That was 1980. (1984 doesn't count because Reagan had no primary opposition). The big "tell" to me came in 1988. It was absolutely clear to me that Kemp was the ideological heir to Reagan, but the establishment who had resisted Reagan in 1976 and 1980 won the day. It's been all downhill ever since. They should have seen Perot in 1992 as a warning sign to change, but they did not. He rose in opposition to NAFTA. Globalist interventionism, bad trade deals, and weak enforcement of illegal immigration are all the disasters of what ought to be called "Bush Republicanism" (both Bushes). My opposition to Trump has been that because he has been on every side of every issue, and he has donated for years to both parties to keep the current system in place, then how can we know what he really believes? I guess the answer to that is you can either keep "Bush Republicanism" or take a chance on Trump. I'm still going to support Cruz in my primary on the 15th. But I will have to give more serious consideration about whether to support Trump if a conservative enters the race on a third party ticket if Trump gets the Republican nomination.

I fully understand the sad necessity to fight wars and I do not believe in “blow back” or any of the other nonsense that says the world will leave us alone if only we will do that same.

How would we even know if it's "nonsense"? The United States has been throwing its weight around the world for over a century, catching up with the European colonial powers in the crafts of invasion, slaughter, oppression and exploitation of weaker peoples and their lands. Why it never seems to have occurred to anybody but Ron Paul that these people might just, you know, feel the most teensy-weensy resentment at being so treated is a bit of a mystery to me.

The United States has been an expansive imperial power for its entire history. The habit of empire is very addictive; imperial nations always overreach, project their strength to the periphery of their conquests, become weak at the center, and eventually collapse. Barbarians pouring in from the previously conquered lands is just one of the stages of the historical cycle. It's not an accident that the first "people of color" to flood into Britain came from places like Pakistan and Britain's former African colonies.

That isn't happening with illegal immigration, and that is not blowback for anything.

The illegal immigration into the US is coming mostly from the south, i.e. Latin America, which the U.S. has been messing over since 1846. In 1847 US troops (including my great-great grandfather and namesake, I'm sorry to say) were in Mexico City; this was not a mere border skirmish. And there were Marines in Central America in the 1930s – not to mention all the mischief and slaughter there in the 1970s. The history of US relations with all the peoples and nations to the south is very messy, bloody, and shameful – if simply typical of how the world has always been everywhere.

Yes, the Indians, Pakistanis and other illegal immigrants from elsewhere in the world are not exactly "blowback", and certainly the US needs to remember that it once had borders – but if we truly wish to understand current events, we need to look beyond what we were taught in school (did you learn about Marines in Nicaragua in the 1930s?) and are told by politicians and media about US history. Truly there is nothing at all "exceptional" about the United States of America; it's just like every other historical empire.

It was democratic Athens and republican Rome who built their empires, both of which ended predictably in disaster for the home country. Didn't somebody say something about the fate of those who refuse to learn from history? Perhaps the most interesting thing about Donald Trump is that he just might somehow manage to turn it all around – if only by accident – and reverse the natural course of events that every other empire has experienced. Not holding my breath, but there is that faint possibility. And that would really be "exceptional".

20. James"The JBS was moderately active in the 1960s with numerous chapters, but rarely engaged in coalition building with other conservatives. It was rejected by most conservatives because of Welch's conspiracy theories. Ayn Rand said in a 1964 Playboy interview, 'I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism ... I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naïve and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas.'"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society#1960s

The John Birch Society was opposed because they were kooky conspiracy theorists, like Infowars is today.

Finally, understand that Trump is where he is because massive amounts of discontent are coming to the fore and Trump is the most convenient funnel at hand for that pouring forth of anger. He's a SYMPTOM not a cause. And whether or not he has realized it yet, he has grabbed a tiger by the balls. When he gets in office and does not do what all those angry people have asked for, their going to turn on HIM and things are really going to get out of hand, because Trump being Trump does not understand being wrong about anything.

So, if Trump comes back before the 2018 mid terms (after we have all seen how the establishment is against him) and says those fuckers in Congress are obstructing the mandate the people gave me and I need you to elect a different batch, do you really think people are going to say: Ahhh, Trump, you are just a fraud?

By the way, Mr Concern Troll, it "grabbed a tiger by the tail." I guess you are too stupid to know that.

@25If that is the case then why have they fucked up so hard already and misread the currents of historyWealth is temporary unless you maintain the system to support it... their big bucks contractors obviously missed this point or maybe they think China will invite them in with open arms

37. Emmett Fitz-HumeBut I haven't seen an anti-Trumper explain to me why they won't do this [support Cruz] if Trump is so bad for the nation.

I'll take a stab:

The establishment isn't a monolith. They don't print up One World Government newsletters to distribute to their membership (who once a year sit around a polished wood conference table in Switzerland like Spectre).They have slightly different preferences for candidates. Some of them have this order:1) Jeb!2) Rubio?3) Kasich, or an also-ran (:|)4) Trump5) Hillary6) Cruz

Some of them switch positions 4 and 5, but all other positions are rock solid. They won't support Cruz because he has already PROVEN he won't play ball with them. Some of the establishment hold out hope that Trump can be "negotiated with" i.e. corrupted. Some think Hillary is a safer bet.

The establishment, like everyone else, will hold onto hope for as long as they can for their favorites (spots 1 through 3). They abandon them reluctantly.After reality (and polls) prove that spots 1 through 3 are untenable, the right path becomes uncertain, except for the fact that Cruz is worse.

Only if revulsion at Trump overcomes competing emotions will the establishment support Cruz. IMO, the establishment isn't very emotional about their corrupt system, so I doubt they'll ever support him. But maybe I'm wrong.

"They won't support Cruz because he has already PROVEN he won't play ball with them"

You mean Cruz has already proven he will play ball with them.

As Cruz wrote policy for GW Bush and wrote an 8 page manifesto on the greatness of GW Bush. Along with creating the Bush immigration policy, which saw 10.5 million immigrants come to our country. During the 8 year Bush tenure they created just 1/3 of the jobs (just over 3 million jobs). When compared to the amount of immigrants let into the country.

So thanks to Bush/Cruz domestic policy. They created roughly 8 million new welfare cases.

Though I should add that I strongly disagree regarding the Establishment being a monolith.

I can only speak from my own perspective but it was painfully obvious that the monolith was pushing Jeb! for the longest time. And when he finally dropped out, it was immediately apparent that the monolith shifted to Marco Rubio.

Fox News plays in the waiting room of my employer all day long. The shift was instantaneous. And executed like a school of fish.

This is exactly the issue. Anyone who thinks the globalist elite (that have power and money enough to make Trump look like an insignificant third world pauper), are not going to send in the big guns who are paid lots of money specifically because they can be very persuasive within the system, hasn't thought this through. Trump is being thoroughly investigated and psychoanalyzed by the best of the best and a strategy to leverage him so as to have his policies written in their favor is being constructed as we speak. Trump won't know what hit him. He's too stupid. He is very smart on a very narrow range of subjects. The rest of his understanding is a mile wide and an inch deep. - Nick S

If your conspiracy theory is accurate, then the same forces will be aligning to control whoever is elected. So... Who cares who wins?

Because I am concerned about you knuckle-dragging dumbasses and the future of the Republican Party and the Future of the Constitution I am telling you that Trump is a fraud and will stab you in the back when he gets in and will do deals with those evil Neocons.

"Because I am concerned about you knuckle-dragging dumbasses and the future of the Republican Party and the Future of the Constitution I am telling you that Trump is a fraud and will stab you in the back when he gets in and will do deals with those evil Neocons

I think I have the tone correct. Any improvements I could make?"

You forgot to brag about having a 140 iq. To establish mental superiority.

The reason is this: conservatives are nothing more than progressives in slow motion. - Vox

Yes, exactly! I've been saying this for only the last 5 or 6 years, while watching the Rs cave on issue after issue. Then, as one looks deeper, you find that the Rs had caved on every major cultural and economic issue of my entire life, I could use the 1965 Hart-Cellar immigration Act as a benchmark.

But that's just hubris and bias, I know of course that the rot goes back much farther. Maybe the Fed and the income tax, 1913...

The most sickening phrases I learned to watch for are wehn any R said that he claimed he can "reach across the aisle" and "work with the other side." I'm looking at you, Kasich, who thinks it's OK fine Christian bakers $160,000 for not baking a cake for gays. (It's only barely sensible if you equally fine gay rights groups for not living by the Nicene Creed).

Fuck that! We never wanted you to reach across the aisle and work with the other side, we wanted you to fight them, spit in their faces, give them no quarter, defeat them, bury them, utterly destroy their ideology which is Marxist anti-Americanism to the core.

71. BGKB March 05, 2016 12:03 PMI think he was talking about the rules of engagement.He has every right to complain about stupid rules of engagement. I just don't see how that's an indictment of conservatism. If conservatism has anything to say at that level of granularity, I would guess that it's "you should rely on the experience of your military professionals."

75. sigbouncerAh, the old "happened on his watch" routine.By that logic, Reagan was responsible for stagflation in his first two years because he didn't stop it. If that's your standard, you're going to be indicting every president in history.Which screw up left over from a previous administration WON'T you be blaming president Trump for (not that he'll actually get elected)?

As Nate pointed out, the GOP establishment are far from economic libertarians. The GOPe and the Dems both pursue policies to to benefit multitudes of corporate interests, so the result is a schizophrenic patchwork of laws and regulations rather than policy methodically devised by an elite.

So the government fights a meaningless war in Iraq while invaders flood into the country legally and illegally. Government forces banks into risky lending decisions, and bankers happily collect their bonuses, knowing the government will have no choice but to bail them out once they threaten to collapse the banking system.

The only thing that conservatives have left to conserve is corporate welfare, and I'm not terribly interested in helping them do that.

@57Its not a message for the rabbits but for the wolves that it is approaching open season

A friend queried today on how to deal with an extremist preacher the police couldn't pin anything on. I said just convince the police to look the other way while the ultras deal with it. No need to complicate things

84. The other robot March 05, 2016 12:19 PMAlso, Wikipedia his hardly a good source for stuff like that.

The last trick of a rhetorical coward: disqualification.Wikipedia (or its SJW editorial staff) weren't the ones saying that. Ayn Rand was the one saying that.Unless you think they just made up quotes from her out of whole cloth (which ought to be easy to disprove).

The problem wasn't so much conservatism but equating those values and ideals with the Republican Party. We as a nation have been lazy these last few decades and went along with so much shit because "don't let the liberals win" and let the Republicans supposedly do battle while in reality they sold the country out year after year. I've never been a Republican but leaned towards them until it became obvious they would let California get ruined by immigration.

I know Trump isn't ideal but I don't care-- He will probably get a wall built and do something about immigration. None of those other bastards will that's for sure. To me, it's important to get one big thing right. If Trump fails on other issues perhaps we can get the next one to do one other big thing right. Keep getting one big thing right at a time and sooner or later it will be turned around.

It is funny to watch the Republican elite panic while the rank-and-file of the party take over and steer the ship. A party which proffered the likes of Romney or John McCain has given up the right to tell anyone who is "right enough".

Going to be interesting-- Will the GOP be taken over by the nationalists or will there be a breakaway party to come out of this?

In this place, at this moment? Perhaps not. Or not much, at any rate. But ask the faithful in North Korea and China if it means nothing.

But I think you underestimate the loathing for Christians amongst our elite, and the effects that's going to have on the use of the title.

> The John Birch Society was opposed because they were kooky conspiracy theorists...

Which conveniently ignores the fact that their "kooky conspiracy theories" have been shown by history to have been largely correct.

Or, perhaps I should say:

"Wal, it ’sa marcy we ’ve gut folks to tell us The rights an’ the wrongs o’ these matters, I vow,— God sends country lawyers, an’ other wise fellers, To start the world’s team wen it gits in a slough; Fer Matt Edwards he Sez the world ’ll go right, ef he hollers out Gee!

92. Emmett Fitz-HumeThe only way to be reasonably sure is to elect Trump and see. The problem with that is, if you chose poorly then you have to live with it for 4 long years.

That was the lesson I took from the 2014 debacle. I've decided to look for as much proof as I can before voting, because many people are liars and they're so expert at it, you'll never know until it's too late.

I don't support Trump because he's all talk. The only proof there is of his beliefs tends to make one believe he's a former (or current) Democrat, along the lines of unscrupulous opportunists like Bloomberg or Charlie Crist.

Going to be interesting-- Will the GOP be taken over by the nationalists or will there be a breakaway party to come out of this?

And if a breakaway party appears, will it be the GOP base leaving to form a party, or will it be some rump group of GOPe donors and token cuckservatives taking their dolly and dishes and leaving the party?

See Matt won't answer the question because he knows when he say "Yes". That he has to answer to the fact that all the Reagan guys, with the exception of Kasich, whom Roger Stone fired from the '76 Reagan campaign for selling pot. Are supporting Trump.

See Matt won't answer the question because he knows when he say "Yes". That he has to answer to the fact that all the Reagan guys, with the exception of Kasich, whom Roger Stone fired from the '76 Reagan campaign for selling pot. Are supporting Trump.

Oh good. They'll have some experience to rely on when it's time to draft the amnesty plan.

94. sigbouncerAs Cruz wrote policy for GW Bush and wrote an 8 page manifesto on the greatness of GW Bush.Along with creating the Bush immigration policy...So thanks to Bush/Cruz domestic policy...blah, blah, blah.

First of all, HOLY FUCK! Not an 8 page manifesto! Clearly he's an enemy of the state for encompassing so much evil into 8 pages. That's some concentrated treason!

More seriously, which position in the Bush administration did Cruz hold where he "creat[ed] domestic [immigration] policy?"I mean, you are clearly referring to immigration policy that Cruz created, and not for example rules on religious liberty, or something else.So which rules did he create, and with the authority of what office?

Your list of indictments must be long and specific by now, since you've had all these years to pore over it. Or are you just talking out your ass again?

95. Emmett Fitz-HumeWell, they're monoliths about some things, and not about others.As I said, they ALL wanted Jeb! as #1. That didn't work out too well, but you saw how long they tried to hold onto the dream. Pathetic.

And Fox stopped being (mostly) conservative years and years ago. IMO, it was the lack of competition for right-leaning eyeballs coupled with the ever-growing cronyist pressure from the state that did it.Or maybe Murdoch is just a greedy dick. Who knows.

"On the 2000 campaign, Cruz’s portfolio was domestic policy, everything from legal issues to immigration to campaign finance. "He was the chief propeller head," said Mark McKinnon, who was Bush's chief strategist on the campaign."

OT: what no kansas caucus etc thread? Cruz supporters were out in force, seeing how hypocritcal they could be by beimg rude to the candidate they call rude. Everyone got out of the Trump rally at once, and if you weren't preregistered, the line was yuge, so the caucus itself was packed with Cruz guys while all the Trump people whad to wait outside in line. Looks to be close, but given Oklahoma I think Cruz will probably win. Cruz branding of Trump as a "non-conservative" seems to have been very effect with the Churchian crowd. They'd rather die on a mythological hill than succeed.

97. The other robot March 05, 2016 12:48 PMBecause I am concerned about you knuckle-dragging dumbasses and the future of the Republican Party and the Future of the Constitution I am telling you that Trump is a fraud and will stab you in the back when he gets in and will do deals with those evil Neocons.

I think I have the tone correct. Any improvements I could make?

knuckle-dragging dumbasses: the same mistake is being made today that was made by *someone* in 2014. I don't know how you voted (or if you did) in 2014, but I know how you're voting now.What am I supposed to do, congratulate you on your political acumen?

future of the Republican Party: only because a uniparty system would be much worse (see: California). I would rather see the corrupt current leadership kicked out, but the institutions saved...or, at least some of them saved.

105. A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 05, 2016 1:03 PMMatt Edwards: what is it that you are conserving?Institutions, beliefs and attitudes that have withstood the test of time. This isn't foolproof evidence that they are still relevant, just heavy circumstantial evidence of it.

Dear Matt and other Trump haters... the GOPe is ignorant because Trump appears to be a wave candidate He will have massive coat tails if they don't fight him. He would increase Republican dominance of Congress, so even if you don't like all his policies, he will have to work with Congress to make huge deals for the American people.

132. sigbouncer March 05, 2016 1:35 PM"On the 2000 campaign, Cruz’s portfolio was domestic policy, everything from legal issues to immigration to campaign finance. "He was the chief propeller head," said Mark McKinnon, who was Bush's chief strategist on the campaign."

1) Politico. Giant grain of salt.2) You know that campaign specialists don't actually *set* policy, right? I mean, if Bush said "I want open borders!" you don't actually think Cruz could write in the opposite and keep the job.Bush set the policy, and like a lawyer, Cruz' job was to facilitate the boss' directives.

Still, is there one specific policy that Cruz is responsible for that you really disagree with? If he drafted good, responsible laws that nobody followed, how is that his fault?

> (or are you going to argue that he knew nothing about US politics too?)

His specialty was foreign relations, not US politics. Or have you forgotten that he a diplomat, national security advisor, and Secretary of State (all from Wikepedia)? So yeah, I think I can say he wasn't all that up on US internal politics.

> P.S. Disqualification is ugly. Hypocrisy moreso.

You would know, I'll grant that. Pretty much all you do is try to disqualify others.

140. sigbouncerToo bad, I'm going to remind you anyway.It was brought up in a conversation about the IQ of the average voter and whether we should be comfortable with 50% of voters having lower IQ than 100.

146. A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 05, 2016 1:55 PMMatt Edwards: what is it that you are conserving?

Institutions, beliefs and attitudes that have withstood the test of time.

Which institutions, beliefs and attitudes are you referring to?

PS:Was Ronald Reagan a conservative?

Institutions (comprehensive list impossible, but): - the constitution including bill of rights. Whether next amendments are good ideas has yet to be proven.- Churches.- voluntary social organizations.- free market economics generally, but care must be taken in international trade.- traditional marriage and the man/woman relationship.

Was Reagan conservative:READ RESPONSE 139, YOU FUCKING RETARD. ESPECIALLY THE FIRST FUCKING SENTENCE!

Shorter Matt Edwards:"Conservatism is Great! And it means exactly what I say it means, neither more nor less. And no, I'm not going to actually say what that is. And Trump isn't a conservative! Because you're all stupid!"You see Matt, strategic vagueness works with midwits and stupid people. Doesn't fly around here. We are all pretty sure now you're a self-deluded fucking moron. Even your fellow Cruzites.

response 139:Yes, as much as anybody can be. Conservatism is an attitude, not a comprehensive set of beliefs. There is no Pope of conservatism, no Bible, just a bunch of competing sects.It's obvious now, after reading that. For Matt, Conservative is a word denoting group membership, not a political philosophy. Dare, I say it? Like a religion.And DJT is not Conservative because he's not a member. Good on ya, Matt. Now fuck off you little SJW rabbit.

179. James Dixon March 05, 2016 3:00 PM So has adultery. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Nowhere in your response did you specify any criteria except withstood the test of time.

So it's semantics time, is it?Because obviously, I *might* have meant that enduring things like sin could be a good basis for society, except that it would've been retarded.Or, you could've just assumed I meant the good things.

I read the full post on the other blog. I agree with about 95% of what he says. I also agree with him about Trump. Trump is by no means an ideal candidate. However, he is VASTLY better than any of the other candidates (both democrat and GOP) and is the only one to say anything remotely sensible/sane on foreign policy.

Trump supporters don't understand what actual conservatism is, so they have no frame of reference for judging if someone is lying to them about it. They fail the conservative Turing Test. - Matt

No Matt, the heart of the matter is that conservatism doesn't mean anything. Thats what all this gnashing of teeth is about: the "established" one are losing their shit over Trump potentially pulling off a heist of their gravy train.

190. A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents March 05, 2016 3:36 PMMatt Edwards, explain how no-fault divorce is a "conservative" belief, given your stated support for marriage as an institution.It isn't. For most of the history of humanity, no-fault divorce hasn't been on the menu. OTOH, I'm not a marriage expert. If you have other evidence, please enlighten me.

Matt Edwards, Ronald Reagan signed into law the first no-fault divorce law. You may or may not be willing to state that Ronald Reagan was a conservative. However, if you ever get the balls to write "Ronald Reagan was a conservative" then you will have to defend his action in signing the very first no-fault divorce law.

'm not a marriage expert.

It's been obvious for a while that you're not an expert on anything other than cuckservative talking points of the week.

So if Reagan deviates from conservatism in any way over the years, he's not a conservative. Um, no.As I said, it's an attitude. Also, a bit understandable considering we are talking about California.See how easily I dismissed that? Just like a Trump supporter.

And he should not have even been allowed into the United States, so no reason he should have been allowed to hold any government employment either. Kissinger is not an American and should not have been sending Americans to die in SE Asia.